RUSH: I'm just saying that if the analysts are right and Obama's worried about a legacy, and he does not want a recession in the second term, he does not want renewed unemployment, then stop talking to him. Let him own the disaster that is going over the cliff and find out if that's indeed what he wants. Now, if you don't like that, I have some other alternatives. If you would rather see the Republicans stay at the negotiating table, if you'd rather see the Republicans hang in there, try to put together a deal, I have some ideas for the Republicans. One of the ideas I have would be to tie all federal pensions to any income tax increase, specifically eliminate federal pensions.
My point is, why should we have our taxes raised so that federal employees' pensions are fully funded and not threatened? We are the ones paying these people. Why are their incomes and why are their pensions so much more important than ours? If we're really serious about this, call a press conference, inform America that while the Republicans may have lost the election, they're still gonna try to win the hearts of all Americans who don't have pensions. They're gonna be for fairness, give people something to cheer for. Give Obama something else to talk about while selling his plan to America.
Congress right now is one of the most hated institutions in the country. Polling data shows that. If the Republicans are really interested in getting a little love from the voters, insist that in this financial crisis, all federal pensions are dropped cold. There is no reason for the taxpayers of this country to be experiencing the destruction they're already experiencing and then be told they have to pay even more taxes so that federal employees' pensions are protected and that federal employees wages are protected. No, I'm not trying to create a war. I'm trying to create some negotiating points. We're trying to win the hearts and minds of the American people here, I thought.
If the Democrats want love from the American people by demanding higher taxes and by demanding more of our private property to solve their budget problems, they can go screw themselves, as far as I'm concerned. Because this budget deal, this fiscal cliff stuff, all that's being talked about here is our private property, and if we're not careful, what's gonna end up here is we are gonna have less of it again. And where's it gonna go? Our private property, in the form of tax increases, is gonna end up being redistributed in the form of Santa Claus gifts to people that vote for Democrats. It's gonna be redistributed to people to maintain their pensions and their wages, all the while we in the private sector are being blamed for the problem. And we're not responsible for the problem.
Under-taxation is not a problem. This is strictly a spending problem. This debt problem is strictly due to federal spending. Now, there are some groups of people who have some culpability. They demand the spending 'cause they know that leads to their goodies. I'm not saying every American's innocent in this. Don't misunderstand. But if our Social Security is going down the drain, then so should federal employee pensions. Isn't Social Security out there on the brink of going over the cliff itself and Medicare, Medicaid, all these entitlements? And the Democrats, "Nope, nope, nope, not gonna talk about that." Well, not talking about it puts it all at risk down the road.
You want to go after rich people? Go after yourselves, Democrats, start with your own perks. Show us you've got some skin in the game, instead of blaming everybody else. How gutless is it to blame the taxpayers. How gutless is it to blame the people who are still working in this country. How gutless is it to blame them for the problems that exist in this country. And to say they're still not paying their fair share. The people working have to pay even more in order to cover the incompetent errors committed by the spenders over all these years.
I'm giving an option, if you're gonna negotiate, negotiate this way. If you're really gonna take it to Obama, take it to Obama. He keeps telling us that we can afford any damn tax cut he dreams up. Sky's the limit. He can afford it, too. He and the Clintons, (imitating Clinton) "Hey, I don't care, people like me, we ought not be complaining. We ought to be paying more taxes." Fine. Come up with a plan where you pay more taxes, too. Get some skin in the game.
I had this in the stack yesterday. I didn't get to it. You know what the Brits spend supporting the entire royal family in the course of a year? Something like that $58 million, folks. Fifty-eight million is what the British government spends in propping up, supporting the royal family, keeping them in the style to which they've become accustomed. You know what we spent on Obama and his family last year? It's like $1.4 billion. That's the number I saw in this story. I thought I kept it in the stack, but I didn't. All the vacations, all the entertaining, all the parties, all the trips, all the Air Force One trips, all the Air Force Two trips.
Maybe we don't feel like paying for pensions for millionaires. Get in on the class war, Republicans. The governing class isn't paying their fair share is what's happening here. The governing class is getting away with blaming the working class. Anyway, there's just a number of different ways that the Republicans can go here, and I'm just trying to present some options.
Here's the story. Investor's Business Daily: "Does Government Want To Drain Americans' 401(k) Plan?" I mentioned this in the first hour. "As Washington debates what to do about the fiscal cliff that it foolishly created --" and that's true. This fiscal cliff, our beloved elected officials put this deal together the last time they came up with a way to raise the debt limit. And they came up with this cliff idea, the details of which are supposed to be so scary, so horrendous, so horrible, nobody would ever want any of it to happen. Right. Uh-huh. The only people I see being told to moderate anything of theirs in it are the Republicans.
"As Washington debates what to do about the fiscal cliff that it foolishly created, many potential sources of new revenue will be thrown on the table. One of them is likely to be 401(k) plans. Retirement is an American's reasonable expectation. We put money into investment plans so that our work today funds our hard-earned leisure of tomorrow. But many in Washington see our investment accounts not as the expressions of well-planned, disciplined decisions but as untapped reservoirs of wealth they can drain to fix the problems that they caused."
And it won't stop with 401(k)s. Then they're figure out a way to get into your pension plan. A lot of cash there, folks. Despite all the unfunded pensions, those are largely public sector pensions, government. Private sector pensions, not unfunded. People own them. Large reservoir of cash there. In fact, I could take you back to the early nineties, first public official I ever heard target private sector pensions none other than -- dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut -- the Reverend Jackson.
"The tax protection that 401(k)s have now can be wiped out by grasping politicians who refuse to do what's right, which is to severely cut spending. The war on retirement, particularly 401(k)s, is quiet now. But that's because it's a cold war. And like the postwar tensions between the East and West, it could erupt at any time into a hot war. One group of retirement plan professionals is warning that the hostilities might be closer than many of us think. The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries launched on Monday, according to Reuters, 'a media campaign intended to educate U.S. employers and workers that the federal government might consider changing the tax benefits of retirement savings accounts.'"
We've talked about this. Do you remember when some guy had an idea of buying your 401(k) in exchange for some guaranteed amount that will not change, with you on the losing end of the deal. Some academic, I forget who. But it's already been proposed. We mentioned it when it first came up. But we have to keep in mind another harsh, cold reality. The election results are what they were. And it could well be, and don't be surprised, if a majority of Americans who voted think that it would be perfectly fine for the government to raid your 401(k). 'Cause it's not fair that you have one in the first place. It's not right.
Your 401(k) exists on the backs of the poor, who at one time had all the money. The poor had a whole lot of money and the rich came along and took it from 'em, and came up with these retirement plans. I'm telling you, a majority of the people that voted in this country to reelect Barack Obama will not have a problem with Obama claiming ownership of your 401(k). It's only fair. It's only redistributionist.
RUSH: By the way, TIME Magazine headline. Snerdley listen to this. Man, when I'm prescient, I am prescient. I did not know this. Six hours ago, TIME Magazine headline: "Fiscal Cliff: Why Congress Might Have to Mess with the 401(k)." Now, I want to take you back. It was October 28th of 2008. It was before the 2008 election on this program. It was an economist from the New School, Teresa Ghilarducci, who first suggested to Congress the idea going after 401(k)s.
"George Miller, who runs a congressional committee, Democrat in California, came out with the first notion of just getting rid of your being able to deduct for your income your contribution to your 401(k)..." He said we have to eliminate the "401(k) tax subsidy" back in 2008. I'm reading from the transcript of this program on October 28, 2008. George Miller (Democrat-California) runs a congressional committee, Democrat in California, came out with the first notion of just getting rid of your being able to deduct for your income your contribution to your 401(k), that the government is 'losing' $80 billion" because of this promise they've made to you.
You get to deduct off the top of your income whatever you contribute to your 401(k), right? The government wants to take that away. It was first proposed four years ago by an economist named Teresa Ghilarducci, or Ghilarducci. I always get confused whether these are hard or soft G's. Like I used to think it was Jake Gyllenhaal 'cause it sounds better than Gyllenhaal, but it's pronounced Gyllenhaal. If it was my name I'd say "Gyllenhaal," but it's not.
So I don't know how this babe pronounces it. But George Miller was told by this babe, the government's losing $80 billion by allowing you to deduct from your gross income, your taxable income, whatever you contribute to your 401(k), and they wanted to take that away. They had a hearing. They actually had a hearing on this back in 2008 where they heard from this professor. She appeared and she said, "I've got a better plan.
"What we want to do, we want to take your 401(k) at its August level, before the crash. We'll give you that equivalent and put it in your Social Security account, essentially, and we're going to invest that money that we take from your retirement account, your 401(k), at its August level. We're going to buy government bonds with it, which will guarantee you 3% -- and then we will require that you put 5% of your pay into your 401(k) although it's not yours anymore.
"The government owns it. They will manage it. They will take care of it, and then when your retirement day comes you'll get your Social Security check and part of your check will be whatever your 401(k) monthly payout is, after 3% of growth every year under the stewardship of the government." That was the deal. People went nuts over it. They went nuts over it, just as they went nuts over losing the deductibility of their credit card interest back in '86. Just as they're gonna go nuts when they lose the deductibility of their mortgage.
Well, that's gonna happen.
You mark my words.
That's already being floated out there as being on the table as part of the cliff deal. Not this year. Not this year. There will be a second part of the cliff deal in the first quarter of 2013. They're floating the idea of reducing the mortgage interest deduction for just the very poor, eliminating it not for everybody but just the very poor. But this 401(k) plan, TIME Magazine's out now with a headline six hours ago saying (summarized), "Oh, it's just such a shame. It's just such a shame. The government might have to look at your 401(k). They might have to mess with it," and it's this plan that was introduced four years ago.
RUSH: Here's the lead of the TIME Magazine story: "One of the earliest fears about tax-favored savings accounts like IRAs and 401(k) plans was that when this pool of savings grew large enough Congress would not be able to resist tapping it to help solve the nation’s debt problems. We’re about to find out if those fears -- persistent for decades -- have been justified."
In a nutshell, TIME Magazine's reporting several studies suggest that 401(k)s just aren't a very good deal, and they aren't very fair, either. For instance, "the Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners." Did you know that, folks? Yes, 401(k)s only benefit the top 20%. The rest of the country's getting the royal shaft. The rest of the country's getting screwed just like it always has with capitalism, and it's about time that that unfairness was fixed.
And so those of you who bought the 401(k) and IRA line when they gave it to you, that you get to deduct off the top of your earnings whatever you contribute for your later retirement, bye-bye. Not officially yet, but it's on the table, which means it will eventually happen. on the basis that it's not fair. Not everybody has a 401(k), and eliminating the deduction for retirement savings would hit the well-off disproportionately, a condition with a lot of appeal in the current political climate. Yeah, anything that hurts the well-off more than anybody else is perfectly fine to do. So all you need is a statistic that says the bulk of retirement income is held by the top 20%, and then you say that isn't fair, and then you have natural majority support for taking it away from people. And there you go.
Did you know, by the way, one of the studies that TIME Magazine cites says that these tax incentives, tax breaks you get for your 401(k), they're meaningless anyway. Only 15% of people really care about it. So you won't even care. Only 15% of you will care that the government takes your 401(k) money away from you. It's no big deal. It's right there in TIME Magazine. And all this got started four years ago with an economics professor from the New School, Teresa Ghilarducci.
And here it is again. (paraphrasing) "Whatever you have in your 401(k) now, you will keep. Everybody who has their 401(k) plan will be grandfathered in. But what I propose instead of getting a tax deduction like a decrease in your taxes by whatever your tax rate is, what will happen is, we will just buy your 401(k) from you and invest it in a bond at 3%, and that's what you get." 'Cause the government needs the money, folks. You don't. The government does, and especially now with Obama.
RUSH: I need to study these. We've got Teresa Ghilarducci clips here that we had back on October 27th. I've got the sound bites, but I want to study the transcripts here. So we'll play 'em in the next hour. This is the babe that wants to basically get rid of the 401(k) by having the government buy yours from you in exchange for a bond that you get 3% on, and they're supposed to gonna add your 401(k) at its value before the crash in August 2008.
That's the total you're gonna get thrown into your Social Security account, plus 3% on a bond, and that's your retirement. No matter what happens. And the whole point of a 401(k) is to be able to invest it, have it grow like crazy, and have an even bigger retirement than what the government has planned for you. But the government needs the money. And, remember, where's it going? And don't forget now, TIME Magazine.
Folks, this is classic. Only 20% of people have 401(k)s. It's not fair. And of the people that have 401(k)s, only 15% really care about it. So they wouldn't mind if anybody took it away from 'em. And it would be fair to take 401(k)s from people because not everybody has them anyway. And that's the basis on which Obama was reelected anyway, to make everything fair. And then there's the fiscal cliff. Remember last week and yesterday we talked about the coming Alternative Minimum Tax that's gonna be applied to even more people.
It's part of the cliff. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. I shouldn't laugh, because all this stuff is as destructive as hell, but the American people voted for it. A majority of the people who voted, voted for it. This 401(k) plan that Teresa Ghilarducci has and these other people want is just a way to suck the last of the capital out of capitalism. Ghilarducci's plan, the way to understand it is to suck the last of the capital out of capitalism. They're making a play for your savings now.
RUSH: See, here we go. 401(k)s. Up until now, it has been identity thieves targeting your savings account. I've told you about LifeLock. They have LifeLock Ultimate to protect your savings account, and they have great protection for credit card fraud and Social Security number fraud. But they added your bank account to the coverage and they called it LifeLock Ultimate because identity thieves are making moves on people's bank accounts now. So you get LifeLock Ultimate, you'll get a call.
You'll get an Internet alert, an e-mail flash alert if any activity occurs on any of your bank accounts that you have registered with LifeLock, and that's how you find out if somebody's attempting to steal 'em. And you shut it down in the process. It's how it works with your credit card. It's how it works with your Social Security number as well. Now we learn that, as part of the fiscal cliff, the Democrats are thinking of eyeing your 401(k) plan. I don't know that LifeLock can protect you against that. I wish it could.
Can you imagine if LifeLock could protect you against Barack Obama stealing your 401(k) plan? But, sadly, that's not the case. I mean, identity thieves are making moves on your bank account as well as your credit card and Social Security. If you're interested in this, then call LifeLock at 800-440-4833. Mention my name and you'll save 10% on your initial membership, which is not very expensive anyway. It doesn't cost very much. That's LifeLock at 800-440-4833, and the promo code is "RUSH," and that gets you 10% off. Pay attention to the news. You'll see, more and more identity theft is centered around people's bank accounts being targeted now, and that's what LifeLock Ultimate is all about. 800-440-4833.